Opinions you have that aren't popular on mumsnet(2)

[Lockdowner35]

As the last thread reached 1000 posts

I will start

Jo Swinson would have do a better job than Boris on Coronavirus

We can't afford to pay pensions from age 60 to the WASPI women even though I sympathise with their position.

People who vote Conservative are not evil and don't want babies to starve. Neither do Conservative MPs.

People who say "I'm not being racist but ..." genuinely believe they're not being racist.

I say all of the above as a right-on, possible woke, left-wing socialist who wanted Jeremy Corbyn to win the election (and would still vote for a Labour party with him as leader).

People who refuse your "perfectly reasonable" request might actually lose their jobs if they obliged you.

You're only a woman if you're born with the right chromosomes, a womb and vagina. All the twisty turney, jiggery pokery, tying yourself in knots wholeness is ever going to change that. I'm not cis. I don't happen to be identifying as a woman. I was born female. I am female.

I can't do your job and you can't do mine. I don't have the skills/training/qualifications and neither do you. Doesn't make either of us superior.

That should be wokeness not wholeness.

Again - you shouldn't have children if you can't afford them.

And if someone who can afford to have them does so, and then falls on hard times? (job loss, or - gasp, shock! - injury or illness, neither of which you seem to want to factor into your little theory). What then?

@Icenii

wondering I mean it. I love a man in a black fleece

I'm quite fond of Boris.

MN is full of middle class snobs.

As for care of elder relatives, in the future the problem could be addressed with, going back to my earlier point, people getting better jobs and making more money, as they could pay for care later on in their lives. However right now it would be a case of going for better-paid jobs in order to pay for care for relatives.

Oh, I see. Because it's so easy just to 'get' these better-paid jobs. Your model would only work if full employment were in place.

More importantly, though, people who have worked and paid into the system are ENTITLED to state help if they need it, because that's how the system works. The UK hasn't completely descended into the cult of the individual just yet, thank goodness, although judging by this thread the 'I'm all right Jack' mentality is certainly alive and well.

@FestiveFruitloop

Again - you shouldn't have children if you can't afford them.

And if someone who can afford to have them does so, and then falls on hard times? (job loss, or - gasp, shock! - injury or illness, neither of which you seem to want to factor into your little theory). What then?

Then absolutely they should get support because the hard times were beyond their control. But while on benefits they shouldn't have more kids for example.

More importantly, though, people who have worked and paid into the system are ENTITLED to state help if they need it, because that's how the system works

So people that haven't paid into the system shouldn't get anything then right?

More importantly, though, people who have worked and paid into the system are ENTITLED to state help if they need it, because that's how the system works.

Yes. Agreed. But not when they have put in a fraction of what they're taking.

people who have worked and paid into the system are ENTITLED to state help if they need it, because that's how the system works.
Not all of them who paid in.

@BarryWhiteIsMyBrother Yes and those people that you suggest paying to care for the elderly parents would be on the kind of low pay that makes them eligible for top-up benefits. So what should they do? If they all aimed higher who would do the low paid caring work?
This is such a basic concept, I don't understand how someone who claims to be intelligent enough to have got a university bursary and high paid job is failing to grasp it.

But while on benefits they shouldn't have more kids for example.

1. Why should the child(ren) be punished for decisions made by their parents?

1. You presume everyone has control over how many children they have, for example abusive relationships often involve forced pregnancy/denial of access to contraception

1. As discussed earlier, a lot of benefits are paid as in-work benefits. Should cleaners, shop assistants, etc not have children?

Everyone pays into the system. If you have ever bought a product or a service subject to VAT, sales tax, or Duty then you have paid tax and have paid into the system.

[quote ChochoCrazyCat]@BarryWhiteIsMyBrother Yes and those people that you suggest paying to care for the elderly parents would be on the kind of low pay that makes them eligible for top-up benefits. So what should they do? If they all aimed higher who would do the low paid caring work?
This is such a basic concept, I don't understand how someone who claims to be intelligent enough to have got a university bursary and high paid job is failing to grasp it. [/quote]
Because we will never have everyone try to get the better jobs. There will always be people who want to stay in the lesser-paid ones (or well paid but PT) because it allows them to do other stuff. Not difficult to understand ;-)

@BarryWhiteIsMyBrother Yes, and you look down on those people and don't want to subsidise them 🤷‍♀️

I don't, no. As I mentioned above, I'm happy to help people who try to help themselves, but if they choose to stay put, that's their choice and not my responsibility to subsidise it.

But if you remove the top-up benefits for low-paid workers, care workers will no longer be able to live off their wages and will need to do something else, (or move to a cheaper area, or emigrate).

You’d need people to do the job who don’t reply on the money e.g. those who are independently wealthy or who have wealthy spouses. Good luck with that. It’s unglamorous, emotionally draining work watching people decline.

A life on benefits isn't a shangri-la either. Its unsecured as your income could change at the whim of the government or by forgetting to fill in the relevant review form by the due date. It reduces when your children grow up and leave school/home. It has caps and limitations. There are expectations for out of work benefits such as spending 35hrs a week jobseeking, signing on, going on courses, etc. It doesn't come with pay progression or a back up plan.

But by your own admission there will always be people who choose to stay put. Because the jobs they do need to be done by someone. But then you keep saying they should aim higher. You're making no sense...

I'm happy to help people who try to help themselves, but if they choose to stay put, that's their choice and not my responsibility to subsidise it.

You personally are not subsidising it, the government is. Beyond voting for the party who most aligns with your views, you don't get a say what the government does with the tax you pay because once its handed over it is no longer yours.

@FoxyTheFox It has caps and limitations. There are expectations for out of work benefits such as spending 35hrs a week jobseeking, signing on, going on courses, etc. It doesn't come with pay progression or a back up plan.

And you think that it shouldn't? That someone on benefit shouldn't try to find a job or learn a skill?

@FoxyTheFox and rightly so!